Woodstock (1969 Film): How Well Do You Think It Has Aged?

This is THE Version to get:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001NXDSLG/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1

And part of CCR’s performance is included in the extras. As well as others.

 

The set I linked to also has Creedence.

In fact, one of its selling points was compiling all the bonus footage that were retail exclusives last time around and presenting them in HD.

 

How right you are.

 

I saw it on the big screen for the *gulp* 30th anniversary.

The backing vocals from the Grease Band actually elicited laughter from the audience since it was a bunch of scruffy looking guys trying to emulate someone like the Blossoms or Sweet Inspirations via male falsetto.

You have to give em credit for reaching back and just doing it in front of 300k plus people.

I wonder how it played in the theater in 1970?

 

Saw it on the screen in 1999. The audience still laughed.

That was the answer I was looking for.

Scruffy hippie guys doing female gospel vocals must be inherently funny!

 

Every time I see part of the movie I am so glad I decided not to go, although this one, less than 100 miles away from me, would have been much worse!

Watch

 

Flo & Eddie always made me grin when they "went Supremes" on their b/g vocals.

 

I saw it in the theater as wee lad, at least 15. Loved it then, love it now. At that time you were a nobody if you did not have the 3LP album.

 

I grabbed that up. Couldn't believe it.

I think the film is still very enjoyable and having all the extras is equally rewarding. The separate bluray of Jimi Hendrix at Woodstock has some great alternate footage, and I consider it a nice companion piece.

There are so many great performances. I think with Martin Scorsese's editing and the wonderful "feel" of the movie...I just shrug. Aged? Uh it is from 1969, it is as "aged" as it is. I wish I woulda been there, and I think I would have stayed to the very end. I usually can stick most events out. The only thing that ever stops me, is the wimps that I roll with (that sometimes have been my ride). When you have been through that a few times, you are your own ride.

I don't blame anyone that left this event though. And without being there, I can't really know how I would have felt. Wishful thinking I guess.

 

The first time I attempted to see it (1982), they wouldn't let us in because my brother was just 13. We had to drag our dad to the Showcase Cinema the next night.

It was a double feature with Monterey Pop, and they really cranked up the volume. Best double feature ever.

 

Far from that to me. The two best things about Monterey are in Woodstock as well, with more years of experience, more maturity and power behind their playing... making Monterey seem much closer to a TV variety show lineup of the time, than the massive concert that Woodstock was.

 

you got it...the only one so far...let's see what the 50th brings.

 

that had to be fabulous on the big screen!

 

and lest not forget Woodstock 2!

 

It was rated R and it was the theatrical version that's not available on Home video presently...ppl were bitching about how they were there but could not get in to see it! funny...

 

Guess I like my rock more psychedelic/innocent and less 'mature'. Hendrix and The Who played pretty relatively boring/safe sets at Woodstock IMHO.
I also enjoy Moby Grape, Quicksilver Messenger Service and The Byrds more than Sha Na Na, Joan Baez and Joe Cocker...but I'd a guitar rocker @ heart.

 

I don't know about that. Star Spangled Banner or Villanova Point safe? I don't see that. I guess in the summation, but damn if you blow the doors off for the person that actually saw Hendrix, those 2 songs alone were very daring IMHO.

The Who, same thing.

 

Apples/Oranges
Rock & Roll/"Rock"
Innocent/"Mature"
Fun/"Daring"

Guess I'll always be a good-time rock & roller @ heart.

 

I am confused. In the first example you say you like it more psychodelic and innocent. Was Star Spangled Banner too hard and not "mature"?

Did Joan Baez not "rock" enough?

I feel your support on both sides and I truly don't know where you lay.

I though Jimi and the Who brought really strong sets even though both were at different place. Hendrix was obviously burned out and threw the band together, but yet despite that, still delivered gold. I applaud him for making a change and not staying safe at all (getting his army buddies to do some pretty out there work).

The Who on the other hand, really killed it, but I respect not liking it as much as others.

My go to with Woodstuck is the fantastic Suite Judy Blue Eyes, I like that version even better than the official recording.

As for the whole movement, pretty hippy and not really "rock" in a Sun Sessions or even Black Sabbath kind of way. Woodstock was just something else entirely.

 

Guess that's why I can take it or leave it now. I never really dug the whole "hippy" thing back then. I had long hair, tripped a lot (even in school), dug The Beatles, Hendrix, The
Airplane etc. and hoped my draft number was 'high' when Nam was happening. But I thought the whole Abbie Hoffman/phony revolutionary stuff was for sheep, and you couldn't
make me sit through a Joan Baez performance if you held me at gunpoint. My idea of a "counterculture" band was The Flying Burrito Brothers...uniting, not dividing music fans.

 

Hahhaa. I run every time I hear her voice come over a loudspeaker.


My fav performance is by Ten Years After, exactly the one that sent someone's wife running.

 

The most important question is this:

Have many folks, after tripping out, smoking weed, and rolling in mud for a good part of the weekend were awoken at 7am (!) on Monday morning to the sounds of Sha-Na-Na and thought the world spun off its axis and freaked out?

 

Probably a Baez supporter!